DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 11/28/2025, Applicant, on 03/02/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 6-7
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner submits that the new amendment to the claims “outputting the determined impact on the product's PCF via an output interface that outputs the determined impact on the product's PCF for further processing, wherein the output interface is operatively connected to a production control system or an ERP system” as argued by Applicant on page 6 is only displaying information which is still abstract. Outputting the determined impact on a user interface for further processing, with BRI, does not really mean that any processing is happening. For example, a bus is made to transport people does not positively recite transporting people. In addition, a user interface is connected to a production control system does not mean any communication going back and forth between the two systems. Finally, the argument “recited in a manner integrated with production/enterprise execution systems for downstream processing” does not mean anything get processed.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action because the claimed limitations are still abstract without significant additional elements.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 102/103
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Walker explicitly recites “The sustainability-factor associated data sources 120 can be from various portions of a process and related to such factors as energy or waste for example and are described in more detail below with respect to Fig. 8” which is an indication that Walker is comparing more than one process. Also, see Walker, para. 0037, Walker teaches “Thus, to determine their sustainability score 640 … Thus, available bottles of wine could be presented to the consumer with the following algorithm: Chardonnay: 1.4 40 0 = (30*1.4) +(20*40) +(10*0) = 842, Chablis: 3 20 1 = (30*3) +(20*40) +(10*1) = 900” wherein determining two different footprints for two production processes. Applicant’s arguments regarding “outputting the determined impact on the product's PCF via an output interface that outputs the determined impact on the product's PCF for further processing, wherein the output interface is operatively connected to a production control system or an ERP system” are moot in view of using the secondary reference Kaufman which teaches the outputting limitations.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 103 in the present office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-17 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-17 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of changing a product manufacturing process based on comparison of two processes’ carbon footprints.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for determining an impact of a difference between two production processes on a product carbon footprint, PCF, of a product produced using the production process, the method comprising: receiving first production process data comprising information about a first production process for a product; receiving second production process data comprising information about a second production process different to the first production process; determining, based on the first production process data, a first PCF of the product (P1, P2, P3) associated with producing the product (P1, P2, P3) using the first production process; determining, based on the second production process data, a second PCF of the product associated with producing the product using the second production process; determining the impact of the difference between the first and second production process by comparing the first and second PCF with each other; and outputting the determined impact on the product's PCF”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for changing a product manufacturing process based on comparison of two processes’ carbon footprints. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 14 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-13 and 15-17 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for changing a product manufacturing process based on comparison of two processes’ carbon footprints. As a result, claims 2-13 and 15-17 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “via an output interface that outputs the determined impact on the product's PCF for further processing, wherein the output interface is operatively connected to a production control system or an ERP system”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further recites “a system comprising a user interface”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 14 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-13 and 15-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 14. As a result, claims 2-13 and 15-17 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “via an output interface that outputs the determined impact on the product's PCF for further processing, wherein the output interface is operatively connected to a production control system or an ERP system”. The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 14 further recites “a system comprising a user interface”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 14 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-13 and 15-17 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1 and 14. As a result, claims 2-13 and 15-17 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over WALKER MARCIA ELAINE (EP2244147 (A2)) in view of KAUFMAN PHILIP JOHN (EP 2244140 A2)
Regarding claim 1. Walker teaches A computer-implemented method for determining an impact of a difference between two production processes on a product carbon footprint, PCF, of a product produced using the production process, [Walker, para. 0022, Walker teaches “The system includes a processor to analyze one or more sustainability factors and a scoring component to assign a weight to the sustainability factors. An optimizer automatically adjusts a production process in view of the sustainability factors, the weight, and at least one of a recycling requirement, a carbon footprint, a procurement process, a shipping process, or a regulatory requirement” wherein carbon footprint difference between two production processes] the method comprising: receiving first production process data comprising information about a first production process for a product; receiving second production process data comprising information about a second production process different to the first production process; [Walker, para. 0024, Walker teaches “The system 100 includes a plurality of discrete monitors 110 that are stationed throughout an industrial system or process and are employed to collect data from various sustainability-factor associated data sources 120. The sustainability-factor associated data sources 120 can be from various portions of a process and related to such factors as energy or waste for example and are described in more detail below with respect to Fig. 8” wherein collecting information related to different production processes] determining, based on the first production process data, a first PCF of the product (P1, P2, P3) associated with producing the product (P1, P2, P3) using the first production process; determining, based on the second production process data, a second PCF of the product associated with producing the product using the second production process; [Walker, para. 0037, Walker teaches “Thus, to determine their sustainability score 640 … Thus, available bottles of wine could be presented to the consumer with the following algorithm: Chardonnay: 1.4 40 0 =(30*1.4)+(20*40)+(10*0)= 842, Chablis: 3 20 1 =(30*3)+(20*40)+(10*1)= 900” wherein determining two different footprints for two production processes] determining the impact of the difference between the first and second production process by comparing the first and second PCF with each other; [Walker, para. 0035, Walker teaches “Fig. 6 illustrates a dynamic scoring system 600 for sustainability factors. The system 600 includes a dynamic scoring component 610 that processes one or more sustainability factors 620 and scoring metrics 630. Upon processing of the factors 620 and metrics 630, one or more sustainability scores 640 are generated that can be employed to automatically adjust productions shipping, manufacturing methods, product procurement, packaging, and/or labeling” wherein automatically adjust productions based on comparison]
Walker does not specifically teach, however; Kaufman teaches and outputting the determined impact on the product's PCF via an output interface that outputs the determined impact on the product's PCF for further processing, wherein the output interface is operatively connected to a production control system or an ERP system [Kaufman, para. 0037, Kaufman teaches “User interface 150 provides for user input and facilitates display of simulation component 140 output and simulation data. Sensors 112, database 120, model component 130 and simulation component 140 can store or prepare component-specific consumption data for importation to or manipulation in a variety of interface environments. In some embodiments, user interface 150 can be managed in a simulation suite such as Rockwell Arena™ or other common software package. Where possible, this data can also be utilized by or exported to complementary software systems (e.g. Rockwell FactoryTalk™ modules, Rockwell RSEnergy™, Rockwell RSPower™, et cetera). Alternatively, user interface 150 can be accessed via a platform-independent or native interface such as a web browser” wherein a connected user outputting interface. In addition, para. 0040 teaches “The discrete consumption of the set or subset is intended to refer to all inputs and outputs of the set or subset, including alternative measures (e.g. sustainability factors, energy and environmental usage or costs, et cetera), and can be directly associated with the specific state relating to the set or subset (e.g. production rate, production quantity, process speed, process labor, time, quality, inputs, outputs, et cetera) and any variables inherent thereto” wherein an interface connected to production system].
Walker teaches optimize manufacturing operations in view of various sustainability factors and Kaufman teaches simulation based on energy or environmental costs associated with particular elements of a system. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing manufacturing processes by changing process steps. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the carbon footprint-based process change of Walker with user interface of Kaufman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing a process change based on carbon footprints.
Regarding claim 2. Walker teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches wherein the method is carried out prior to an actual implementation of the second production process within a production planning phase [Walker, para. 0043, Walker teaches “For example, portions of a process may be rearranged to minimize overall energy usage (e.g., perform step C before step A in order to conserve energy from the reverse order of A and C)” wherein rearranging process steps to minimize energy is equivalent to a second process after a first process. Claim 2 is a condition to implement a change which does not contribute anything to the problem being solved by the present invention. The claimed invention is solving a carbon footprint of a process by comparing carbon footprints of two processes together].
Regarding claim 3. Walker teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches wherein the second production process comprises an extension of the and/or a change in at least one production step compared to the first production process [Walker, para. 0043, Walker teaches “For example, portions of a process may be rearranged to minimize overall energy usage (e.g., perform step C before step A in order to conserve energy from the reverse order of A and C)” wherein perform step C before step A is equivalent to a change of a production step of a first process].
Regarding claim 4. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Walker does not specifically teach, however; Kaufman teaches wherein the impact of the difference between the first and second production process on the product's PCF is output via a user interface [Kaufman, para. 0036, Kaufman teaches “Simulation component 140 provides an assembled simulation to user interface 150”].
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the carbon footprint-based process change of Walker with user interface of Kaufman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing a process change based on carbon footprints.
Regarding claim 5. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Walker does not specifically teach, however; Kaufman teaches wherein the second production process data is received via a user interface configured to allow the user, starting from the first production process, to make a change and/or extension to it to obtain the second production process data [Kaufman, para. 0036, Kaufman teaches “Simulation component 140 provides an assembled simulation to user interface 150”. In addition, para. 0065 teaches “If the scenario is to be implemented, new control data and transition warnings are provided for deployment of the selected scenario. Control data can include general or specific information on one or more means of applying the selected scenario” wherein a selected change for a process. Also, see para. 0037 teaches “User interface 150 provides for user input and facilitates display of simulation component 140 output and simulation data”]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the carbon footprint-based process change of Walker with user interface of Kaufman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing a process change based on carbon footprints.
Regarding claim 6. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (as above). Walker does not specifically teach, however; Kaufman teaches wherein the user interface is configured for providing the user with a selection of production process and/or product modifications as a blueprint or reference from which a change and/or extension to the first production process can be selected to obtain the second production process data [Kaufman, para. 0036, Kaufman teaches “Simulation component 140 provides an assembled simulation to user interface 150”. In addition, para. 0065 teaches “If the scenario is to be implemented, new control data and transition warnings are provided for deployment of the selected scenario. Control data can include general or specific information on one or more means of applying the selected scenario” wherein a selected change for a process. Also, see para. 0037 teaches “User interface 150 provides for user input and facilitates display of simulation component 140 output and simulation data” wherein selecting production change by a user]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine the carbon footprint-based process change of Walker with user interface of Kaufman since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing a process change based on carbon footprints.
Regarding claim 7. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches further comprising: checking the first production process data and/or second production process data for consistency, particularly checking for a closed production chain [Walker, para. 0040, Walker teaches “A dynamic sustainability score (DSS) could accompany materials through their lifecycle from extraction to disposal/recycling adding up the cumulative sustainability impact of the steps completed” wherein sustainability is equivalent to consistency and wherein the steps completed is equivalent to a closed production chain]
Regarding claim 8. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (as above). Further, Walker teaches further comprising: adjusting the first production process data and/or second production process data based on the checking for consistency [Walker, para. 0040, Walker teaches “A dynamic sustainability score (DSS) could accompany materials through their lifecycle from extraction to disposal/recycling adding up the cumulative sustainability impact of the steps completed, in a manner that is optimally customizable according to consumer-defined, manufacturer/company/organization-defined, or governmentally-defined weighting of sustainability factors 620” wherein “optimally customizable according to consumer-defined, manufacturer/company/organization-defined, or governmentally-defined weighting of sustainability factors 620” is equivalent to “adjusting the first production process data and/or second production process data based on the checking for consistency”]
Regarding claim 9. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches further comprising: additionally comparing the second PCF to at least one reference PCF used as a PCF target value; and adjusting the first production process data and/or second production process data based on the comparison with the at least one reference PCF [Walker, claim 4, Walker teaches “A production method for managing carbon footprints, comprising: determining a range of values for a desired carbon footprint; analyzing product ingredients, product manufacturing methods, or product shipping methods in view of the desired carbon footprint; and automatically adjusting an automated manufacturing process in view of the desired carbon footprint” wherein adjusting based on a range of values for a desired carbon footprint (target value)]
Regarding claim 10. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches further comprising: determining a ratio between the difference between the first and second production process and an extend of production equipment adjustments associated with the difference between the first and second production process [Walker, para. 0038, Walker teaches “The consumer could choose the Chardonnay, as the weighted score would indicate that by balancing the factors of importance to them - with safety performance of the employer being more important - the Chardonnay is thus the better choice. However, another consumer - from a drought prone area, perhaps - might find water usage to be of most importance” “Chardonnay: 1.4 40 0= (10*1.4) + (30*40) + (20*0) = 1214 and Chablis: 3 20 1 = (10*3) + (30*20) + (20*1) = 650” wherein the choice is made based on a value of 650 compared to 1214 which is equivalent to a ration].
Regarding claim 11. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches wherein the first PCF and/or second PCF is determined by: receiving a carbon footprint of raw material used for producing the product; receiving energy data comprising information about an energy consumption for each production process step; and calculating the one first PCF and/or second PCF of the product taking into account the fist and/or second production process data, the carbon footprint of raw material and the energy data [Walker, para. 0026, Walker teaches “Should the end product be destined for shipment to a European country that, in a future state, imposes carbon taxes, the modeling system could determine: Which batch of raw ingredients or; which manufacturing method and/or; which shipping method provides the lowest overall carbon footprint” wherein footprint of raw material. Further, para. 0028 teaches “For example, a particular government authority may desire to encourage the use of solar power. Merely having energy usage information on a label would be insufficient to administer a tax on a product, as that would not indicate what type of energy was used. By associating a Sustainability Factor indicating the type of energy used for production, in addition to other relevant Sustainability Factors” wherein energy consumption factor]
Regarding claim 12. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches A method for monitoring and/or controlling production of a product comprising using an impact of a different between two production processes on a product carbon footprint of the product, wherein the impact is determined by the method of claim 1 [Walker, para. 0022, Walker teaches “The system includes a processor to analyze one or more sustainability factors and a scoring component to assign a weight to the sustainability factors. An optimizer automatically adjusts a production process in view of the sustainability factors, the weight, and at least one of a recycling requirement, a carbon footprint, a procurement process, a shipping process, or a regulatory requirement” wherein carbon footprint difference between two production processes. Wherein “automatically adjusts a production process in view of the sustainability factors” is equivalent to “impact of a different between two production processes on a product carbon footprint of the product”].
Regarding claim 13. Walker in view of Kaufman teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Walker teaches A non-transitory computer readable data medium storing a computer program including instructions for executing steps of the method according to claim 1 [Walker, para. 0023, Walker teaches “For example, a component may be, but is not limited to being, a process running on a processor, a processor, an object, an executable, a thread of execution, a program and a computer”]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 14 is directed to a system which is anticipated by Walker para. 0044.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 3 is a method claim while claim 16 is directed to a system which is anticipated by Walker para. 0044.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 4 is a method claim while claim 15 is directed to a system which is anticipated by Walker para. 0044.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 6 is a method claim while claim 17 is directed to a system which is anticipated by Walker para. 0044.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 03/02/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights